Relationship between Morality and Happiness - Essay Example

Relationship between Morality and Happiness based on Kant and Mill Introduction This paper seeks to answer the question; is the morally right thing to do the one that produces happiness? Theologians and philosophers debate the question between right and wrong and the satisfaction drawn from doing things backed by moral justifications. It is important to note that the question raises other questions based on logic. For example, in the modern world, should morality be influenced by actions that take into consideration the greatest number of people affected; or should the rationale of morality focus on logic and other personal beliefs? Juxtaposing Kant’s and Mill’s ideas reveals the philosophical relation between their arguments clearly albeit with a lot of effort. Focus on Kant The ideology of metaphysics was a major avenue of study followed by Immanuel Kant. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of a person’s know how and being. (Kant, 98). It is evident that Kant’s idea of morality relies on the occurrence of metaphysics as an individual science. “The law effected by the uniformed forces should be absolutely necessary so as to have moral implications.” In fact, scholars have identified this statement as a basic maxim of Kant’s philosophical ideas. According to Kant (2008), there should a group of truths referred to as necessary truths, for there to be morality. These truths define a person’s incentive to fulfill his/her duties and enhance psychological growth through the act of seeking moral worth. Moral worth in turn has its consequences based on happiness in action or satisfaction of the greatest number. Consequently, people decide to take various actions in accordance with duty; thus making it a moral choice. The will to perform duty or take action is classified as good or bad. Kant notes that if action is based on bad will, then all the externalities point towards immoral intent. To understand the aspect of satisfaction of the greatest number, we need to ask ourselves; what are the necessary truths? Kant states “he should not act otherwise so that his maxim can become universally accepted.” (698) In interpretation, people owe their obedience to their social duty. In obedience to duty there exists the basis for morality and if anyone tries to make an immoral idea wholly accepted, there will be contradiction. For example if one decides to kill anyone who offends him, then everyone will do the same leading to extinction of the human race. While quoting Kant’s work, Gert (2007) argues that it is necessary to avoid double-standards between the actions we take and those that we expect others to take. If one neglects duty, he/she neglects the general laws; thus this nullifies the applicability of moral law. However, the generalized law is not entirely true in some instances as seen through the phrases; “I must tell the truth at all times” and “I may not lie” If these statements are considered to be general laws, then telling partial truths does not raise contradictions since the law regulates lying not partial truths. This implies that there is some space for error in the definition of laws based on the necessary truths. Analysis Kant’s theory is simple and applicable in each real life situation. However, the hypotheses that morality depends on the dedication to duty leaves out the description of good deeds. Some moral deeds that induce happiness come from the goodness of the heart as theologian White (2008) states. Kant’s theory fails to take into account this acts as morals. In addition, Kant’s maxim states that we owe obedience through duty and he calls this the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative defines duty and is thus the sole incentive of moral actions. Kant’s theory only focuses on a few immoral actions. Furthermore, it fails to give the acceptable moral actions to replace the immoral aspects. Using the categorical imperative cannot indicate whether an action is good or bad. On the contrary, it only determines the morality of an action. Since Kant’s philosophy prescribes moral acts under the scope of obligation, his general law contradicts modern actions viewed as moral, but are not obligations. For example lending a hand with heavy objects is not mandatory, however, it is considered moral. The major omission of Kant’s work is that it ignores the philosophical fact that human action is guided by human desire. Kant’s view of morality requires that people act through following the duties assigned without any desires. According to Kant, immorality arises from desire. He proposes that humans need freedom and the ability to prove that they are free in order to take action. If one beliefs that he/she is free, and then recognizes the responsibilities assigned, then it is possible to act based on duty and not desire. In summary, Kant’s philosophy is a sphere of comparison of the immoral and moral actions. This comparison causes contradiction in real life applications. For example, general law requires that one preserves their life so when faced with a choice between lying and dying, then the result will be a contradiction. Focus on Mill Scholar’s view Mill’s moral philosophy as more complete compared to that of Kant. The rationale for Mill’s theory is that every action aims at producing the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number of people. Stuart Mill takes into account the aspect of human desire in action. He explains that happiness for the greatest number is desirable because people individually believe that it can be attained. Due to this belief, everyone desires to attain happiness on their own level. (Sher and Mill, 112) A look at Mill begs the question; what is the greatest happiness and what is the aim of all human action? In the book Utilitarianism Mill defines happiness as the absence of pain and the presence of pressure. To answer the question above, the aim of human action is the attainment of pleasure and it defines morality based on Mill’s theory. Morality in this case is the rules that govern human behavior. There is need to determine the factors that cause pleasure and those that cause pain in the real world. In order to do this, Mill needs to state how to determine the amount of pleasure at an instance. Therefore, one has to experience various pleasures so that he/she can classify them based on the satisfaction drawn. Higher pleasure is measured in terms of psychological gratification often intellect while low pleasure is physically determined. Physical aspects are considered to have low pleasure because they are strenuous. The will to do something determines actions which in turn lead to attaining the desire. The level of the desire determines the will to do something in that if the desire is great, taking an action is inevitable. Mill’s philosophy introduces the aspect of motives. The basic motive is attainment of happiness and pleasure. At times, some actions may produce more pain than pleasure but people will continue to take those actions because they have a level of pleasure. In a wider scope, habits result from desire which reinforces the will to do something. Analysis Mill assumes that a person desires the happiness of others in conjunction with the desire for his own. Therefore, the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people is that of the individual person. Scholars argue that this assumption is only applicable in a utopian society. Though Mill includes the aspect of desire in his work, he assumes that humans only desire pleasure. On the bright side, it is proven that pleasure leads to happiness and that happiness is desirable. However, not all things that induce desire in the human mind lead to happiness. This interrelation in desire, pleasure and happiness is true in the real world. But, it is crucial to note that morality describes human conduct and not behavioral tendencies. In philosophical thought, morality is the ideal not the reality; thus explaining the idea of a utopian society. In rule Utilitarianism, the principle of general happiness leads to general rules. However, it does not show how happiness at an individual level leads to happiness of a great number of people. Mill’s work lacks the approach that Kant uses where human action also depends on principles with no consideration of the end result. The greatest happiness ideology does not take into consideration the externalities of human motives. Complementary Aspects of Mill’s and Kant’s Views o Morality Mill and Kant complete each other in their arguments. The major difference is in the aspect directly related to morals. Kant argues that duty determines the morals and that people have an obligation to duty bounded by morality. On the other hand, Mill believes that an action is moral based on the level of happiness it induces in a great number of people. In Mill’s arguments, one cannot be moral without inducing happiness in other people; but, according to Kant, it is possible to moral and selfish. If Mill’s statement is improved to include the aspect of causing happiness to other people as an obligation, then morality is measured in terms of Kant and Mill. In this case, one can weigh the duties that produce the greatest happiness based on immediate actions when duties conflict. Specifity Kant’s theory is not specific in the scope of the application of the laws to people. Mill rectifies this by proposing the formation of laws that lead to attainment of happiness. Morality will then be measured by the level of adherence to those laws. If an action dictated by Mill’s theory is immoral, it will be made moral by following the rules set. Recall that Kant states that one has to follow the rules. I propose that the principle if greatest happiness and obligation to duty be intertwined so that when pursuit of happiness appears immoral, it is protected under formulated laws. Subjectivity Mill’s work appears to be subjective while Kant’s work is objective. From the proposition of formulating rules that govern the principle of happiness, it is possible to introduce clauses that solve contradictions. The question from Mill’s work of why one desires happiness solely fades under the consideration that happiness is not instrumental in Kant’s theory. Mill’s ideology of will becomes applicable in performance of duties that focus on the promotion of greatest happiness. Experience Mill’s philosophy relies on the rationale that in experience one can be able to determine the actions that produce the greatest happiness and satisfaction. “Moral laws change with time as long change is necessary. (Sher and Mill, 117) Kant’s theory is referred to as priori in that it does not allow for such changes. Quoting Kant, Gert (2007) states that the, moral code depends on necessary truths and static laws which do not change even in dynamic circumstances. Introducing Kant’s priori concept to the happiness concept by Mill creates dynamic laws adjustable based on the level of knowledge. Relevance Kant and Mill do not regard altruism as a moral aspect. Kant maintains that action should be guided by duty. If one follows the established laws then it is irrelevant whether he cares about others. Mill also attributes general happiness to that of the individual person in that everyone desires happiness for other people. However, Mill does not argue that one should carry out kind acts in order to induce happiness in others. The moral code remains constant in that caring for others is not relevant. It is right to state that showing acts of kindness may serve the purpose of making an individual happy by default. But then again; why should philosophers argue that altruism is moral? The answer lies in the modern conventional deeds that people tend to view as right. In the real sense, people have created necessary truths similar to those proposed by Kant. Conclusion Kant and Mill have different approaches to the idea of happiness for the greatest numbers. It should be noted that Kant does not talk of happiness in that his sole concern is following the generalized laws in effect. Since Kant’s flaws complement Mill’s omissions, I propose that the two theories be intertwined in application. Therefore, morality will be evaluated by applying the views of both philosophers. Creating a set of laws that prescribe the scope of duty and happiness creates an objective approach to morality. Works Cited Gert, Bernard. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, Print. Kant, Immanuel. Introduction to the Metaphysics of Morals. Radford, VA: Wilder Publications, 2008, Print. Mill. J. Stuart and Sher, George. Utilitarianism. Indiana: Hackett Pub Co, 2002. White, Jerry. Honesty, Morality and Conscience. Colorado: Navigators Press, 1996. Read More